- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34279 CRL.P No. 8745 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8745 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ASHWATHANARAYANA C AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O. CHIKKAPPAIAH, R/AT NO-639, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU – 562 110. 2. SRI. G. VENUGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O GOPALAPPA, R/AT NO-C 61, BEHIND PETROL PUMP, PRASHANTH NAGAR, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THIRUMALASHETTAHALLI POLICE, HOSKOTE, BENGALURU, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. P.H.RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O P.R.HANUMAPPA, PANATHURU VILLAGE, VARTHURU HOBALI, BENGALURU EAST, BENGALURU DISTRICT – 560 087. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1 SRI. RAMESH M.N, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34279 CRL.P No. 8745 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.105/2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 / THIRUMALASHETTAHALLI POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 465, 467 AND 468 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILES OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSAKOTE, BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT. THIS PETITION IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04.06.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CAV ORDER In this petition, petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 2 seek quashing of the impugned complaint and FIR in Crime No.105/2024 registered by the 1st respondent – Police and for other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the 1st respondent – State as well as learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the material on record. 3. The material on record will indicate that the 2nd respondent – de facto complainant filed the impugned complaint dated 06.07.2024 registered as an FIR in Crime No.105/2024 against the petitioners – accused Nos. 1 and 2 and one Ravi representing the ITC Ltd., as accused No.3 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR and complaint on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34279 CRL.P No. 8745 of 2024 various grounds including contending that the complaint and FIR in relation to a sale agreement dated 15.02.2008 executed by late Hanumappa, father of 2nd respondent – complainant in the year 2024 was barred by limitation and huge / enormous and inordinate / unexplained latches and delay. It is contended that there are various litigations between the petitioners, ITC ltd., and the 2nd respondent and his other family members including filing of civil suits in O.S.No.894/2021 and O.S.No.3099/2022 and the impugned complaint and FIR seeking to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute relating to immovable property deserves to be quashed. 4. The 2nd respondent has filed his statement of objections and contested the petition and contends that the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be apposite to refer to the impugned complaint dated 06.07.2024, which reads as under:- “gÀªÀjUÉ, DgÀPÀëPÀ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, wgÀĪÀÄ®±ÉnÖºÀ½î ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ, ºÉƸÀPÉÆÃmÉ vÁ®ÆèPï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ f¯Éè, gÀªÀjAzÀ, ²æà ¦.ºÉZï.gÁªÀÄPÀȵÀÚ¥Àà ©£ï. ¯ÉÃmï ¦.Dgï.ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄ¥Àà, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34279 CRL.P No. 8745 of 2024 ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì 62 ªÀµÀð, MPÀÌ°UÀgÀÄ, ªÀåªÀ¸ÁAiÀÄ, ªÁ¸À - ¥ÀtvÀÆÛgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÀƪÀð vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA. 9379027910 ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄä°è PÉÆÃjPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉ£ÉAzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁAiÀÄ¢AzÀ fêÀ£À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¦.Dgï.ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄ¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀÄ 1) ¢£ÁAPÀ 04.07.2005 gÀAzÀÄ ªÁUÀl UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 108 gÀ°è 4 JPÀgÉ 11 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß PÉ.D.¥ÀÄgÀA ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ CfÃeï ¸Á¨ï gÀªÀgÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ. 2) ¢£ÁAPÀ 01.08.2005 gÀAzÀÄ ZÀAzÁæ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 1 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ 3 JPÀgÉ 34 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÁUÀl UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ ªÉĺÀ§Æ¨ï ¥ÁµÀ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉAiÀĪÀgÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ. 3) ¢£ÁAPÀ 02.12.2005 gÀAzÀÄ ZÀAzÁæ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 1 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ 2 JPÀgÉ 20 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÁUÀl UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ ªÀÄĸÁÛ¥ï ¸Á© gÀªÀgÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ. 4) ¢£ÁAPÀ 24.01.2006 gÀAzÀÄ ZÀAzÁæ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄ¥À ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 23 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ 1 JPÀgÉ 29 1/2 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß PÁqÀÄUÉÆÃr ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ ¨Á¨Á¸Á© gÀªÀgÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ. 5) ¢£ÁAPÀ 10..04.2006 gÀAzÀÄ ªÁUÀl UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 145 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ 4 JPÀgÉ 12 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÁUÀl UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ ªÉAPÀl¥Àà gÀªÀgÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ 6) ¢£ÁAPÀ 05.06.2006 gÀAzÀÄ ªÁUÀl UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 148 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ 2 JPÀgÉ 3 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÁUÀl UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ ZÁAzï ©Ã gÀªÀgÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ jf¸ÀÖgï ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ J¯Áè zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀÄvÀÛªÉ. £À£Àß vÀAqÉAiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 20.06.2017 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ ¥ÀlÖzÀÄÝ F d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À «ZÁgÀzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄUÀÆ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä CPÀÌ vÀAVAiÀÄgÀ £ÀqÀÄªÉ «ªÁzÀ EzÀÄzÀÝjAzÀ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ ªÀÄÈvÀ ¥ÀlÖ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ¥Ëw SÁvÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. FUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J¯Áè d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½gÀÄvÀÛªÉ. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34279 CRL.P No. 8745 of 2024 ºÁUÉAiÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä aPÀÌ¥Àà£ÁzÀ ¦.Dgï.PÀȵÀÚ¥Àà gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ PÉ.¸ÀAvÉÆõï PÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 03.12.2006 gÀAzÀÄ ZÀAzÁæ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 22/1 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ 4 JPÀgÉ 3 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÁUÀl UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ ¨Á¨Á¸Á© gÀªÀgÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ jf¸ÀÖgï ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ J¯Áè zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ PÉ.¸ÀAvÉÆõï PÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀÄvÀÛªÉ. ºÁUÉAiÉÄ E£ÉÆߧ⠣ÀªÀÄä aPÀÌ¥Àà£À ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ ¦.PÉ.¨Á§Ä gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 04.02.2006 gÀAzÀÄ ªÁUÀl UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 146/1 gÀ°ègÀĪÀ 3 JPÀgÉ 4 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÁUÀl UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ C§ÄÝ¯ï ¸À¯ÁA gÀªÀgÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ jf¸ÀÖgï ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ J¯Áè zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¦.PÉ.¨Á§Ä gÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀÄvÀÛªÉ. »ÃVgÀĪÀ°è F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ zÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½î ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÁzÀ C±Àéxï £ÁgÁAiÀÄt (J¸ï.J¯ï.J£ï) ©£ï. ¯ÉÃmï aPÀÌ¥ÀàAiÀÄ, £ÀA.639, ¸ÀÆ°¨É¯É ªÉÄÊ£ï gÉÆÃqï, zÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½î mË£ï, ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÃtÄUÉÆÃ¥Á¯ï ©£ï. ¯ÉÃmï UÉÆÃ¥Á®¥Àà, £ÀA.¹-61, ¥ÉmÉÆæÃ¯ï §APï »A¨sÁUÀ, ¥Àæ±ÁAvï £ÀUÀgÀ, zÉêÀ£ÀºÀ½î mË£ï, gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ CVæªÉÄAmï lÄ ¸Éïï C£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 15.02.2008 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¦.Dgï ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄ¥Àà ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß aPÀÌ¥Àà£À ªÀÄPÀ̼ÁzÀ PÉ.¸ÀAvÉÆõï PÀĪÀiÁgÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¦.PÉ.¨Á§Ä gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃj ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀĪÀAvÉ £ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀPÀ° ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J¯Áè d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Ln¹ PÀA¥À¤UÉ £ÉÆÃzÁªÀuɬĮèzÀ ¸Éïï CVæªÉÄAmï C£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁr Ln¹ PÀA¥À¤ PÀqɬÄAzÀ 10,60,81250-00 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀªÀÄUÉ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ £ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀPÀ° ªÀiÁr £ÀPÀ° PÀæAiÀÄzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀȵÀ×¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F PÀÈvÀåzÀ°è C±Àéxï £ÁgÁAiÀÄt, ªÉÃtÄUÉÆÃ¥Á¯ï ºÁUÀÆ Ln¹ ªÀÄÄPÀå PÁAiÀÄ𠤪ÁðºÀPÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀiÁzÀ gÀ« gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨ÁVAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃw PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¸ÀlèªÉÄAmï ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ C±Àéxï £ÁgÁAiÀÄt gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉýPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ ¸ÀlèªÉÄAmï ªÀiÁqÀzÉ EzÀÄzÀÝjAzÀ F ¢£À vÀqÀªÁV §AzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹ ¸À»/- (gÁªÀÄPÀȵÀÚ¥Àà ¦.ºÉZï.)” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34279 CRL.P No. 8745 of 2024 6. A perusal of the impugned complaint will indicate that the 2nd respondent specifically alleges that a sale agreement dated 15.02.2008 executed by his father Hanumappa and others in favour of petitioners is a forged, fabricated and fraudulent document in relation to immovable property. The 2nd respondent – complainant also refers to certain earlier documents during the period 2005 – 06 in relation to immovable property. In this context, it is relevant to state that though the 2nd respondent’s father Hanumappa is said to have expired in 2017, no complaint was given by the said Hanumappa from 2008 till 2017 during his lifetime. In the entire complaint, there is absolutely no explanation whatsoever offered by the 2nd respondent – complainant as regards the long, inordinate, enormous, huge and unexplained delay and latches on the part of the 2nd respondent and / or his father to file the impugned complaint in the year 2024 after more than 16 years, which is sufficient to vitiate the impugned complaint and FIR, which deserve to be quashed. 7. Under identical circumstances, in the case of Chanchalapathy Das vs. State West Bengal & Another – 2023 SCC OnLine SC 650, the Apex Court held as under:- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34279 CRL.P No. 8745 of 2024 “14. It is again pertinent to note that, even as per the case of the complainant, the alleged incident of bus theft had taken place in the year 2001, and it was only in 2009 that the substantial complaint was made in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. It is just not believable that the Ballygunge Police Station concerned, Kolkata would not have taken any action on the report made in 2002 on behalf of the powerful body like ISKCON, Kolkata, or on the letter dated 30-9-2006 written by the Branch Manager of ISKCON, Kolkata. Respondent 2 complainant also did not take any concrete action for getting the said complaint registered with regard to the alleged theft of bus for a long period of eight years, till the complaint in the court was filed in the year 2009. 15. In the opinion of the Court such an inordinate delay of eight years in filing the complaint in the court itself would be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. If the luxury bus owned by ISKCON, Kolkata Branch in 1998 was so precious to them, they would not have sat silent for such a long time of eight years. In our opinion, the criminal machinery set into motion by filing the complaint for the alleged incident which had taken place eight years ago, that act itself was nothing but a sheer misuse and abuse of the process of the court. xxxx 18. It cannot be gainsaid that the High Courts have power to quash the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34279 CRL.P No. 8745 of 2024 powers under Section 482 should be sparingly exercised and with great caution, the said powers ought to be exercised if a clear case of abuse of process of law is made out by the accused. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404] the Supreme Court had held that the criminal proceedings could be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 if the court is of the opinion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings are to be quashed. 19. This Court, way back in 1992 in the landmark decision State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , after considering relevant provisions more particularly Section 482CrPC and the principles of law enunciated by this Court relating to the exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226, had laid down certain guidelines for the exercise of powers of quashing, which have been followed in umpteen number of cases. The relevant part thereof reads as under : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34279 CRL.P No. 8745 of 2024 precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34279 CRL.P No. 8745 of 2024 20. In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy [State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1805] this Court had observed that the court would be justified to quash the proceedings if it finds that initiation or continuance of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of court. 21. As regards inordinate delay in filing the complaint it has been recently observed by this Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of T.N. [Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of T.N., (2022) 15 SCC 164 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 632] that though inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, however unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint. 22. In the light of the aforestated legal position, if the facts of the case are appreciated, there remains no shadow of doubt that the complaint filed by the respondent complainant after an inordinate unexplained delay of eight years was nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the process of law to settle personal scores with the appellants, and that continuation of such malicious prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of process of law, more particularly when neither the allegations made in the complaint nor in the charge-sheet, disclose any prima facie case against the appellants. The allegations made against the appellants are so absurd and improbable that no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants-accused.” - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34279 CRL.P No. 8745 of 2024 8. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the huge, enormous, long, inordinate and unexplained delay and latches on the part of the 2nd respondent-complainant and/or his father in filing the impugned complaint and FIR after a lapse of more than 16 years would clearly be fatal to their claim and consequently, the impugned complaint and FIR deserve to be quashed in the sad facts and circumstances of the instant case. 9. The material on record also indicates that accused No.3 is one Ravi, who is a representative of ITC Ltd., which had allegedly/ purportedly entered into various transactions, documents etc., with the petitioners, Hanumappa - father of 2nd respondent and their family members in relation to immovable properties. It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that a suit in O.S.No.894/2021 filed by ITC Ltd., is pending against the petitioners herein (defendants 1 and 2) and deceased Hanumappa (defendant No.8) and others before the Civil Court. In addition thereto, the 2nd respondent himself refers to one more suit in O.S.No.3099/2022 pending between the parties in relation to the said properties. In fact, in his statement of objections, the 2nd respondent refers to two more sale - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34279 CRL.P No. 8745 of 2024 agreements dated 07.02.2013 and 30.12.2020 between petitioners and ITC Ltd., in relation to the said properties. The 2nd respondent also refers to various other civil transactions and correspondences between the petitioners, ITC ltd., and other persons in relation to the said properties. 10. In this regard, it is significant to note that though all these transactions, documents, litigations, suits etc., had come into existence prior to the impugned complaint dated 06.07.2024 and were well within the knowledge of the 2nd respondent, who himself refers to the same in his statement of objections, the 2nd respondent has clearly intentionally and deliberately suppressed the said facts with malafide intentions and ulterior motives. It is therefore clear that the 2nd respondent is attempting to convert an essentially, predominantly and overwhelmingly civil dispute pertaining to immovable properties into a criminal action by filing the impugned complaint and FIR in order to give the civil dispute a criminal texture / flavour / colour, which is impermissible in law and the impugned complaint and FIR deserve to be quashed on this ground also as held by the Apex Court in the cases of, (i) Urmila Devi and Others v. Balram and Another - 2025 INSC 915; (ii) - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34279 CRL.P No. 8745 of 2024 S.N. Vijayalakshmi and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another - 2025 INSC 917; (iii) Naresh Kumar and Others v. The State of Karnataka and Others - 2024 INSC 196; (iv) Lalit Chaturvedi and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171; (v) K. Bharthi Devi v. State of Telangana and Another - 2024 INSC 750; and (vi) Delhi Race Club and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248. 11. 11. A perusal of the allegations made in the impugned complaint and FIR will indicate that the same contain general, bald, vague and omnibus allegations which neither attract nor constitute the necessary ingredients or disclose the commission of the alleged offences by the petitioners; as stated supra, the complaint refers to a document dated 15.02.2008 executed by the complainant’s father Hanumappa, who expired in the year 2017 and in the light of the fact that the complainant is not a party or a signatory to the said document, it cannot be said that he had / has any personal knowledge in relation to the said transaction / document so as to enable him to file the impugned complaint, which deserves to be quashed on this ground also, particularly when the necessary / - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34279 CRL.P No. 8745 of 2024 requisite ingredients constituting the alleged offences are not forthcoming and are conspicuously absent in the impugned complaint and FIR. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the continuation of the impugned proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 13. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.105/2024 registered by the 1st respondent – Police for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of Trial court, insofar as the petitioners are concerned is hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.